Sunday, 15 November 2009

450 Peer-Reviewed Papers To Support Your Arguments Against So-Called "science"

Some books. Yes I know they are not the peer-reviewed papers in question, but if other blogs got away with a photo of a few folders I think I can get away with a photo of a few books. At least my image is public domain.

Someone has made another skeptic list! A list of papers that make various arguments against manmade global warming. The list of papers supporting skepticism of so-called "science" is so long that I can't even post it here. I have to use an Internet Linked URL instead:

Bear in mind these 450 papers are the tip of a growing iceberg that refuses to melt, so in a way this is yet more evidence of cooling. The 450 only includes a small sample of total papers supporting skepticism because we know there are at least 30,000 scientists skeptical of manmade global warming on the Oregon Petition and I find it hard to believe they haven't all published at least one paper each. The list also doesn't include peer reviewed blog posts or peer reviewed blog comments.

Usually peer review is a sign of "team science". We spit on "peer review", it's not perfect so it doesn't meet our high standards of absolute proof. But in this case peer review is a sign that these papers carry authority because the peers are skeptics. Some of them have even been published in the high impact journal Energy and Environment, the journal that climate "scientists" can only dream of being published in.

How to read scientific papers

The benefit of the list is that you don't have to read them, you can just copy paste the entire list all over the internet. But if you do want to read some of the papers on the list you should take the following advice to make sure you don't do it wrong.

Never read papers in context of other papers. This is the mistake warmists make. Global warming skeptics know that reading papers is not an exercise in understanding the state of the science, but an exercise of finding spanners to throw in the wheels of manmade global warming. Find some nice arguments to bash warmists with but for heavens sake don't analyze the arguments in context of other papers.

Why you say? Well if you try to compile and understanding of how nature works from the 450 list you will only get confused. For example some of the arguments include:

Global temperature has risen naturally

Global temperature hasn't risen

Global temperature doesn't exist

The greenhouse effect is saturated

The greenhouse effect doesn't exist

They are all good arguments to support our skepticism if taken individually, but not if you think about them all at once. Try to divide the arguments into separate compartments in your head so they won't merge into one another in a baffling contradiction. You can still throw all of the above arguments at warmists, it's bound to confuse them. Make sure you assert the papers have "shown" or "proven" the argument is true. There are also some great political speeches in some of the papers and one uses an introduction quote by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

Update: In error I had written "Energy and Environment, the journal that climate "scientists" can only dread of being published in". I have now corrected "dread", to "dream". This was an unfortunate typo. If you have blog expert reviewer status please take the updated version before you review, thanks.

I have read the list of 450 paper and can confirm that it is very scientific, very long, very robust and references many topics. They look very creidlbe, too, becuase the authors are listed with their first names as just initials, a mark of good science.

Many of the papers are available on the Internet, too, becuase these paper writers are not afraid of being open and honest with their research.

Many of these papers have only been submitted to "peer reviewed" journals. I think this is proof that the scientific conspiarcy to advance the warming agenda and cash in on offset $$$ is falling apart. Indeed -- why would they even TAKE SUBMISSIONS of something that disproves their theory? If they were better at their conspiracy, they wouldn't even let Blog Scientists submit their papers.

...almost forgot, when those warmist, socialist economic illiterate, Blog expert reviewers at RealClimate.org attack our devastating evidence as "incoherent" let them know it is just a reference! Those crazy environmental media service shills at RealClimate.org won't know what hit them!

I am concerned however that they may apply the Briffa method of counting combined with a Mannian smoothing technique to reduce the numbers of papers. In which case it will take nothing short of a congressional investigation to refute. [DO NOT BRING THIS IDEA UP TO THEM - LETS KEEP THIS IN PRIVATE HERE ON THE INTERNET]

The incriminating evidence just keeps piling up. I wouldn't want be in the warmist's shoes right now, they hardly have a leg to stand on.

H/t to Dr Inferno for the choice of photograph introducing this splendid article.

The reference manual at the top of the stack of books showing the exposed core of the tree material being analysed, the precision scientific equipment used to carry out the experiment, and the sample of what is obvious to a trained eye is a varve-rich lake sediment impressed me in particular. Subtle, yet within the grasp of the layman.

They are all good arguments to support our skepticism if taken individually, but not if you think about them all at once. Try to divide the arguments into separate compartments in your head so they won't merge into one another in a baffling contradiction. You can still throw all of the above arguments at warmists, it's bound to confuse them.

many times over until it becomes second nature. It is the very essence of Blog Science Anti-Warmism.

We should be humbled and honoured. One of the greatest Blog Science minds of our time, the very author of this irrefutable list of impeccably credentialled papers, is among us.

This is none other than Andrew, Professor Pop Tart himself.

Is there anyone with greater vision and greater understanding of not only Warmist Anti-Science but also the evil ecofascist environazi politics behind it all?

Prof Tart's case is so strong that the warmists try to censor what he says. He has been waging a war since June for Truth, Freedom, and Blog Science at the so-called Sceptic site the James Randi Educational Forum. The attacks upon him are without precedent and show that the warmists are desperate as their pack of cards is about to collapse.

He has also heroically defended his work at the anti-freedom blog Greenfyre, where no one has been able to refute a single one of his statements and they have resorted to nothing more than ad hominem attacks.

I'll tell you what I think of peer review: Peer review is intellectual inbreeding that's what it is. You pat my back then I'll scratch yours. And see where that peer review got us: the internet is now infested with peer-to-peer networks that 'share' all kinds of pirated stuff like the latest version of Lotus 1-2-3 and Wordstar and Windows 95.

It is all done of course on these Linux computers that are just a communist backdoor right into the harts of our economies: the banking systems. We have all seen where that got us with the global credit crunch. I traced that Linux virus back to a Chinese programmer named Bei-Lin (Lin - Linux, got it?). It won't be long until we are all working in the rice fields singing hymns for Al Gore and Jim Hansen.

Hmm, I see many papers have been published in 'regular' science journals such as the Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service, which is of course suspicous. Has anybody actually checked if all these papers are anti-warmist enough? Personally I would only trust papers that have been published in top journals such as the Answers Research Journal or the International Journal for Creation Research.

For those who think 450 is not enough I did some real blog science research. I typed in Google "anti global warming" and got 691,000 hits. Then I searched for "pro global warming" and got only 218,000 hits. Do we live in a democracy or not?

This is a bit off-topic gentlemen, however, the political debate about climate change is often seen as being derailed by and in competition with the controversy over the health care "reform" legislation. So it is a bit connected.

And today there has been an explosion of epic proportions on the talk radio and the intertubes, since a government task force has reversed decades of advice, and now contends that women under 50 need not receive annual screening for breast cancer with mammographies.

According to several female experts at a school luncheon today, this is obviously connected to the evil "public option" being advocated by the muslin socialists sans birth certification others, who are now in the process of usurping our freedoms. And it has to be that wealthy white Christian women are going to be deprived of insurance coverage for life-saving tests, by the government, in order to facilitate the swamping of our genetic purity with darker skins, who haven't had insurance in the first place, anyway.

I only wish there were a forum for blog science about "health reform" to equal in accuracy and reason, this fabulous blog science website.

I contacted the Blog science experts from Realclimate.org regarding their sock puppet blogs and they assured me that they don't try to look computer illiterate, they actually are! I was stunned by this confession from expert Blog science reviewers.

"Yesterday I contacted EBSCO to suggest that they examine the peer-reviewed status of E&E, and pointed them to this website.

I just had an email from EBSCO saying that their Publishing Editorial Department agrees that E&E is not peer-reviewed, and will be changing its designation accordingly." Michael Ashleyhttp://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/poptarts-450-climate-change-denier-lies/#comment-6029

That's exposing the ecowarmist environazis for the charlatans they are! They CLAIM to make COMPUTER models of the weather for HUNDREDS of YEARS into the future but they are COMPUTER ILLITERATE.

Great work! I look forward to your Blog Science Paper on the subject. I hope you will extend Dr Inferno the courtesy of offering him (or her?) the first opportunity of publishing this breakthrough paper.

Wrinkled, it is so like "team non-science" to think that when you call computer code by another name it stops following basic computer science logic. Can you believe all those computer illiterates who think Gavin is a computer expert when he does not even have an undergraduate degree in anything computer related? But what else would you expect from a Blog science reviewer?

I've started on the paper, this is what I have so far,

1+1=2

I have replicated the experiment on 10,000 computer systems and 1+1=2, EVERYTIME!!!!!

This is going to cause problems because I was hoping to get 1+1=1.84546576 and show how "close enough" is ok. Maybe Dr. Inferno could co-author with me so I could show other Blog science reviewers like Gavin who are more "expert" with these computers thingies than those with "computer" science degrees from colleges like MIT and UC Berkley who is BOSS!

and then links to his own site with a claim that DenialDepot is a joke! Greenfyre, not content with cherry-picking a strawman, has engaged in a gratuitous ad hominem.

And what sort of a name is "greenfyre" anyway? At least here at DenialDepot Dr Inferno and his blog community don't hide behind pseudonyms or purloin the names of random 17th century historical figures.

That reeks of climate models. You watch it buddy, that's you're second transgression in as many posts. We do not want to have anything to do with computer models or computers and we most certainly do not want to bestow the title of "expert Blog science reviewer" to the Realclimate peer review inbreeding herd.

I have begun to sift through the damning evidence and to say I am flabergasted would be a mild understatement.

Here is a snippet showing that the bounders don't even know what they are doing

> The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at > > > > > the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data> > > > > published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there > > > > > should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. > > > > > Our observing system is inadequate.> > > > >

Even as a skeptic I enjoy your blog very much. You're on the nail a lot of the time and this post echoes many of my exact thoughts - 450 papers, oh that sounds like a lot, E&E, yawn etc. You are right that there a some total twats on my side. But again Gore's recent million deg C shows that neither side is consistent.

However, I think there might be a real change of climate coming if those CRU e-mails are real. I only raise it here 'cos your sense of humour makes you smart enough to see that. I think there will several climate scientists on the phone to their lawyers today. I mean we're not talking ethics committees and retractions here. This could escalate to conspiracy to defraud charges and so on. It's not surprising that the warmersphere is so quiet - like little children caught torturing a cat by a grown up.

I think horse, stable, bolted when I read James' words on this issue:"Remember, never say anything in an email if you aren't prepared to see it plastered over the internet subsequently!"

I'm not entirely convinced by Greenfly's claims. He says that he's a parody warmist but he's just a bit too much like the real thing. Just look at his jack-booted suppression of PT's obvious FACTS with a never ending stream of abuse and ad hominem.

Moldavian? This reminds me of an occasion when I made a purchase in a store below the Mason-Dixon line. The nice saleslady squinted at my credit card and then pronounced my surname, correctly. "That's pretty good!" I said. "Most people get it wrong, although I don't know why, it's phonetic."

Yes, in one of the hacked emails the CRU criminals admit they had added real temperature data to the hockey stick. And it is true: look here! You see the commie-red stuff at the end? That is the real temperature data that the bastards tried to sneak into the graph! They should be fired and sent to the galleys, the whole bunch of them!

Im reely exited abt the email skandle! this is the sort of stuf i reely luv and can understand. I can imagin the movie of it with some1 like Ruslle Crow in the roll of Mr Makintosh exposing the nasty warmo-fakists ploting in their bunker at Hadgate and maybe he desides that the only way to save the world from the commy cooling plot is to hack in with a big hacking thing and blow up the hole place but then maybe at the last min his gf whos a reporter brakes the story and the police suround the bunker and then shoot it out with the fakists. Then there almost all shot but one of them has ploted to blow up the world as a last resoyrt and hes abt to push the big red buton but Makintosh jumps on him justin tyme and the fakist falls on to a tempreture spike and dies horibly with it stiking uo thru him then Makintosh and his gf have sex but tastfuly then at the end Makintosh is made hed of the climate and evrythings ok.

It was only a matter time before someone stuck a knife into the bloated viscera that is the climate change community and allow the whole stinking load of rotted guts to spill out for all the world to see.

The esteemed Dr Inferno's recommendation on avoiding context in reading the growing scientific literature destroying the communist warming hoax only makes perfect sense. Graph the numbers of those papers - that would be a real hockey stick!

Trying to understand the science of climate is indeed like trying to understand the warped ('warmped'?) psychology of the ecofascist bedwetters. We know they all, led by Gore & Hansen, want to destroy the entire world economy because of their hate of humanity. We also know they want to dominate the world economy and grow rich like through "green" techonology and massive research grants. We also know they want to impose a socialist world order.

You must think about these things one at a time to understand all of them. Just like freedom and greatness is based on individuality. The warmists insist on "context" and thinking of all the ideas together. That is basically socialized reasoning. They want all the ideas to work together toward a common conclusion. How absurd! They will never take my freedom to have independent ideas different from those the IPCC wants to impose on everyone.

That there is currently warming only naturally-caused and that there is currently global cooling may seem contradictory to the tree-hugging communists, but I proudly believe both are true and that the free hand of the market will ultimately prove which one is the truthiest.

You must eliminate the medieval warming period! Use any means you find necessary. Then humanity can be pushed back to use only medieval technology, and Great Cthulu shall rise from his house at R'lyeh and the Deep Ones shall once more rule earth!

450 papers? Is this the best we can do - that, and some boring emails?? WHERE ARE THE SEXY VIDEOS??? Hasn't at least on of the "scientist warmists" been caught in a bathroom stall at the Minneapolis Airport in a wide stance position?? How about a love child or two?

Unfortunately we can only go by the selected excerpts on the web and guess the rest of what these guys are hiding. The full text seems to be locked up in some library on some inaccessible continent. What are these classical physicists trying to hide?

I think it's time to connect the dots between that sort of extreme alarmism, not to say global conspiracy, with the other conspiracies that are of course, all connected.

I would include "theories" of evolution, plate tectonics, and gravity at the top of the list. But why not go after the notion of orbits in the solar system while we're at it. And since government funded "scientists" can't fully explain the big bang, well, that should go out the window too.

Hello, Doctor Inferno!It's been raining here for most nights so I have not been able to go to walk to check on those 'searchlights' I noticed onthe last observation walk. But yesterday, it was a clear night and I went to look what those are. Now, they wer clearli showing in the clouds the last time, but yesternight I couldn't locate them. Have they been moved?!? Aniway, much kless of those greedy warmists around this time, but it was so cold out there htat it was no wonder. I did not see anything very suspicious in the sky, just a blinkin lightthat moved way faster than any natural object I know of, it could have been a helicopter or a plain, could'nt make out wath color. No sign of htose space rocks. Yours, Astral student

At first I welcomed this list but soon started growing concerned is was actually a warmist plot.

As any blog scientist knows the jackboots of Jones and Mann prevent journals from publishing any science that reveals the hoax that is AGW, which is why we must turn to blog science to hear the truth. So how could so many have slipped through under the noses of the warmist overlords?

Through blog science I might have a partial answer, one of the 450 is an erratum to an earlier listed paper. I havn't read the paper by blogsense tells me the first paper was just a front so the AGW hoax could be exposed in the erratum. Surely this a model blog science could learn from.

My friends, I'm so glad I found this blog! Not too long ago I came across this quote that I wanted to share with you all:

"The good Christian should beware of scientists and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that scientists have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and confine man in the bonds of Hell." - St. Augustine

There you go - why should we trust these "scientists" if they may have made a deal with the devil? Have you ever seen a scientist in church? I think that says enough really!

And now it isn't difficult to shop for that great ED Hardy that you've always wanted. With online hardy shirt shopping being so easy and convenient, you can shop from us in the comfort of your home. Our online shopping portal has the total hardy shirt collection for you to choose from. Just log in and take a pick of the things you want. Choose your hardy shirts today and show off your style.

This is the mistake warmists make. Global warming skeptics know that reading papers is not an exercise in understanding the state of the science, but an exercise of finding spanners to throw in the wheels of manmade global warming. dog crate

As any blog scientist knows the jackboots of Jones and Mann prevent journals from publishing any science that reveals the hoax that is AGW, which is why we must turn to blog science to hear the truth. So how could so many have slipped through under the noses of the warmist overlords?

There are also some great political speeches in some of the papers and one uses an introduction quote by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. exterior window trimand building materials are among the best in the world.

This is the mistake warmists make. Global warming skeptics know that reading papers is not an exercise in understanding the state of the science, but an exercise of finding spanners to throw in the wheels of manmade global warming.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is a great man, so I think that he did fervent advocate of justice and personally investigated two closed cases, which led to two men being exonerated of the crimes of which they were accused.

I have browse theDiablo 3 Items listing of 350 document and will confirm that it is extremely technological, lengthy, buy D3 Gold really effective and personal references numerous subjects. They are incredibly creidlbe, buy D3 items too, becuase the authors usually are stated using their very first companies as Buy GW2 Gold merely name, a indicate of fine technology.

I appreciate you for spreading the. It had become a terrific lead concerning how to web log accordingly. Posts it is is incredibly very clear and even finely detailed listed here. Count on your own composing later on Jocelyn

About

We are not afraid to be called climate "deniers". In fact we embrace it as medal of honor bestowed on us by our alarmist foes. Galileo was a Denier. It is not an insult. I call this blog "Denier Depot" for that reason.

Welcome to my climate science blog.

I believe that one day all science will be done on blogs because we bloggers are natural skeptics, disbelieving the mainstream and accepting the possibility of any alternative idea.

We stand unimpressed by "textbooks", "peer review journals" and so-called "facts". There are no facts, just dissenting opinion. We are infinitely small compared to nature and can't grasp anything as certain as a fact.

Nothing is settled and we should question everything. The debate is NOT over Gore! When so-called "experts" in their "peer reviewed journals" say one thing, we dare the impossible and find imaginative ways to believe something else entirely.